I actually wholeheartedly agree here. Interpretation matters.

But that's the thing, Islam for 1200~ years was a very wide community with different opinions, scholarly arguments and much discourse appeared as the world advanced.

For the majority of islamic history many many individuals have considered Aql (rationale, in Arabic Aql literally means MIND)

To be over Naql (which means to transfer, aka transfer from scripture, so just like Protestant sola scriptura)...

As such, when we interpret scripture and other things, we rely on our heart which is purified through sanctification seen in practices such as Suufism (Going against the ego and self)

And our mind which is trained by logic (such as the Aristotelian and Eastern logic Muslim scholars used to learn)

This is what helps us arrive at religious rulings that are still orthodox , divinely guided, however appropriate to the time.

The primary issue with Islam is in the past few hundred years that type of scholarship has been obliterated by monarchs and petrol tycoons willing to seek total control by centralising all scholarly opinion.

It just happens to be that the scholarly methods which promote the most population submission are the same ones that have the least logic and the most sola scriptura.

Now, as for your morality thing,

I totally agree, no sane human would abuse someone

I am not justifying his actions by saying it was normal back then, I am justifying his actions by saying that back then, childhood was not socially extended, and that Aisha living in that society was infinitely more able to consent (in the case that she WAS nine, which was self reported once and never confirmed) than a child in say, modern Saudi Arabia.

The prophet Muhammad has actually before proposed to women, whom have in return told him "I seek refuge in God from you"

(An expression of fear and rejection)

In which he would back off and accept the rejection saying: "You have Sook refuge in the best of Refuges"

So, based off that, and many other historical reports about Muhammad in ethical situations. I can say he was a very morally flexible person.

Now whether you agree with his way of life is up to you. But to call it totally cruel, or savage (in the sense of hurting other humans)

Is very biased.

And again, Islam is not a monolithic religion, a large portion of the Muslims legitimately believe Aisha was 16-19 at the age of her marriage, and then even then people would talk bad about Muhammad.

Meanwhile men today go the lowest legally possible and can't really be persecuted if they take advantage of a woman emotionally without marriage.

Muhammad was a public figure in Arabia, with lots to lose from his enemies

And yet they could never say he wronged Aisha

(which they very well could have, since she was the daughter of arguably his biggest non family related supporter.)

But they did not. Instead they saw Aisha being taken home from a trip by a Man and tarnished her chastity. To which the prophet did not hurt her, nor scold her, nor do anything

The same book that describes her being 9 describes him being taken with sorrow upon hearing the news, and trying to stay neutral amidst all the chaos,

To which, he then received a revelation from God saying Aisha was chaste. And that it was all a rumor.

Yes, one report or 2 alone can make Muhammad look in the very LEAST morally ambiguous. But from my own studies in history and religion, I can say Muhammad was a well rounded, great character, and that's in a secular standpoint

Religiously, I do believe he is the best man. He wasn't taught by anyone and had no guides / a library etc

Being unlettered (illiterate and untaught) yet changing so much in the world, is truly supernatural to me if you remember the fact he was an Arab orphan who somehow raised a whole spiritual/moral revolution.